If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

After all these years of arguing against it you still haven't understood the premise of UK and Australian gun control and why it works.

Its is not about allowing people including criminals to access guns and limiting what they do with them by statue. I would agree with you that is pretty futile.

But it is about creating a situation where there is a very limited supply of guns for criminals and law abiding citizens and reducing the amount of gun crime due to undermining the supply.

All the figures from the UK and Australia would suggest its an more effective technique than ensuring everyone has lots of guns.

In other words, according to you, it's about punishing the law abiding people for the actions of criminals by restricting what they can do for the actions of a small minority of people. Sorry, but if you think that is a cogent and logical argument for gun control, you're greatly mistaken. It's the very reason I am against gun control.

Th question you want to ask yourself is should the USA be in a list with all of those countries or in a list with

Australia, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, etc

I see the USA as a mature industrialised democracy which deserves to be in above that list.

If you think two places better than Somalia in terms of murder rates as where the USA ought to we have very different ideas on where america sits in the world.

I believe you've missed my point here. America's problem with murder isn't because of guns, because every country on the earth has FAR less civilian owned guns that America does, and yet America is FAR from the world's murder capital. There are like 100 countries more dangerous than America wrt murder, and ALL of them have far fewer guns.

Murderers cause murders, guns don't. America's problem with murder, is because America has more murderers per capita living here than do " Australia, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, etc." (Try not to gloat.)

The number of civilian owned guns per capita in America has doubled over the past 50 years, and the murder rate is the same; guns do not murder, nor do guns create murderers. Taking guns away won't take away our murderers, and doubling the number of guns again over the next 50 years isn't going to create more of them either.

I believe you've missed my point here. America's problem with murder isn't because of guns, because every country on the earth has FAR less civilian owned guns that America does, and yet America is FAR from the world's murder capital. There are like 100 countries more dangerous than America wrt murder, and ALL of them have far fewer guns.

Murderers cause murders, guns don't. America's problem with murder, is because America has more murderers per capita living here than do " Australia, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, etc." (Try not to gloat.)

The number of civilian owned guns per capita in America has doubled over the past 50 years, and the murder rate is the same; guns do not murder, nor do guns create murderers. Taking guns away won't take away our murderers, and doubling the number of guns again over the next 50 years isn't going to create more of them either.

Pro-gunners don't have the intelligence to realise that all their guns would not disappear over night if gun control laws were passed. This is nonsense. It would take decades of small steps to go from where they are now to say where the UK is now.

Notice that this cartoon is in the "opinion" section of the Denver Post, not the fact section? Probably because it ignores facts. Like how at the time, guns were being manufactured to fire as many rounds as possible. Go ahead and google 1700's firearms.

Cars may be a necessary evil in a modern democracy - guns, especially assault weapons, were designed with an evil intent and are not a necessity in a civil society.

What is an "assault weapon?" Can you define it? As well a statement of manufacture intent.

Automobiles and every other product manufactured in America are subject to government regulation to protect the public - firearms (but not toy guns) are exempt from such safety regulations.

So, more regulations, by this logic, does not equate into more safety.

Also, you are completely wrong. Firearms are highly regulated. You know, like how modifiers that make weapons automatic are illegal, automatic weapons are illegal, and permits are required for gun use/carry.

Unlike the auto industry, the "gun lobby" has even gone as far as even curtailing government financed studies as to the impact of firearms on American society - apparently ignorance is bliss!

Oh wow. Except that this is false, too. Anti-gun lobbyists pay more than pro-gun lobbyists. Let us compare the two largest contributors: The NRA gave $838,215 to congress in 2016. This was in varying forms of payment (individual payments, PACs). That is a lot of money. But anti-gun legislation lobbyist, Everytown for Gun Safety, gave over $910,000. That is more than the NRA. Yay math skills.

So, your entire response is false, in every aspect, including the misrepresented ideals of the founding fathers.

Notice that this cartoon is in the "opinion" section of the Denver Post, not the fact section? Probably because it ignores facts. Like how at the time, guns were being manufactured to fire as many rounds as possible. Go ahead and google 1700's firearms.

What is an "assault weapon?" Can you define it? As well a statement of manufacture intent.

So, more regulations, by this logic, does not equate into more safety.

Also, you are completely wrong. Firearms are highly regulated. You know, like how modifiers that make weapons automatic are illegal, automatic weapons are illegal, and permits are required for gun use/carry.

Oh wow. Except that this is false, too. Anti-gun lobbyists pay more than pro-gun lobbyists. Let us compare the two largest contributors: The NRA gave $838,215 to congress in 2016. This was in varying forms of payment (individual payments, PACs). That is a lot of money. But anti-gun legislation lobbyist, Everytown for Gun Safety, gave over $910,000. That is more than the NRA. Yay math skills.

So, your entire response is false, in every aspect, including the misrepresented ideals of the founding fathers.

Notice that this cartoon is in the "opinion" section of the Denver Post, not the fact section? Probably because it ignores facts. Like how at the time, guns were being manufactured to fire as many rounds as possible. Go ahead and google 1700's firearms.

What is an "assault weapon?" Can you define it? As well a statement of manufacture intent.

So, more regulations, by this logic, does not equate into more safety.

Also, you are completely wrong. Firearms are highly regulated. You know, like how modifiers that make weapons automatic are illegal, automatic weapons are illegal, and permits are required for gun use/carry.

Oh wow. Except that this is false, too. Anti-gun lobbyists pay more than pro-gun lobbyists. Let us compare the two largest contributors: The NRA gave $838,215 to congress in 2016. This was in varying forms of payment (individual payments, PACs). That is a lot of money. But anti-gun legislation lobbyist, Everytown for Gun Safety, gave over $910,000. That is more than the NRA. Yay math skills.

So, your entire response is false, in every aspect, including the misrepresented ideals of the founding fathers.

Pro-gunners don't have the intelligence to realise that all their guns would not disappear over night if gun control laws were passed. This is nonsense. It would take decades of small steps to go from where they are now to say where the UK is now.

What kind of gun control laws? I ask this as someone who believes LAW-ABIDING citizens should have a right to defend themselves, their family and their home.

Don't let the pettiness of life prevent you from enjoying God's plenty. ― Bernard Kelvin Clive

After all these years of arguing against it you still haven't understood the premise of UK and Australian gun control and why it works.

Its is not about allowing people including criminals to access guns and limiting what they do with them by statue. I would agree with you that is pretty futile.

But it is about creating a situation where there is a very limited supply of guns for criminals and law abiding citizens and reducing the amount of gun crime due to undermining the supply.

All the figures from the UK and Australia would suggest its an more effective technique than ensuring everyone has lots of guns.

I have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ... it's the law abiding citizens part. As I have explained to you before, the limited supply you wish to have will always be obtained by the CRIMINALS ... because they are not law abiding citizens. That puts criminals at an advantage.

Don't let the pettiness of life prevent you from enjoying God's plenty. ― Bernard Kelvin Clive